A/HRC/19/60 activities in the field of freedom of religion or belief, other States have decided not to do so and to take different routes to discharge their obligation to promote freedom of religion or belief. 61. Should States provide for specific status positions on behalf of religious or belief communities, they should ensure that these provisions are conceptualized and implemented in a non-discriminatory manner. Non-discrimination is one of the overarching principles of human rights. It relates to human dignity, which should be respected for all human beings in an equal and thus non-discriminatory way. To quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights once more, all human beings are “born … equal in dignity and rights” and must be treated accordingly. Moreover, the principle of non-discrimination undoubtedly also prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. This has been explicitly enshrined in numerous human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. 62. Unfortunately, the Special Rapporteur has received a lot of information on existing discriminatory practices and policies of States when it comes to providing specific status positions and concomitant privileges to some denominations, while withholding the same position from others. In many cases, the criteria applied remain vaguely defined or are even not defined at all. In a number of other cases, general reference is made to the cultural heritage of the country in which some religious denominations are said to have played predominant roles. While this might be historically correct, one has to wonder why such a historical reference should be reflected in a legal text or even in a Constitution. Reference to the predominant historical role of one particular religion can easily become a pretext for a discriminatory treatment of the adherents to other religions or beliefs. There are numerous examples indicating that this is actually the case. 63. Moreover, quite a number of States have established an official State religion, a status position often even enshrined in State Constitutions. Although, in most cases, only one religion has been accorded such an official position, there are also examples of two or more State religions existing in one country. The practical implications of the establishment of a State religion can be very different, ranging from a more or less symbolic superior rank of one religion to rigid measures aimed at protecting the predominant role of the State religion against any denominational competition or against public criticism. In some extreme cases, only followers of the official State religion are allowed to manifest their religious or belief-based convictions. There are also examples of States rendering citizenship dependent on adherence to the State religion. 24 In quite a number of States, those who wish to take up important positions within the State apparatus – such as president, prime minister, member of parliament, king, queen, attorney-general, chief justice or member of the national human rights institution – must be affiliated with a particular religion or denomination and have to publicly declare allegiance to this religion by taking an oath.25 Providing some denominations with a privileged status position or establishing an official State religion is sometimes part and parcel of a State policy of fostering national identity. Ample experience shows, however, that this harbours serious risks of discrimination against minorities, for instance, against members of immigrant religious communities or new religious movements. 64. The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate in this context that, while the notion of State religions is not per se prohibited under international human rights law, States have 24 25 See A/63/161, paras. 28–30. See ibid., para. 38. 17